I'm conflicted on this game. Should I buy after that and make the practise of finishing games post-launch look acceptable in the eyes of other devs, or should I not buy it and make it look like it's not worth save a game like that after it fails?

I bought it when it came out and beat it. No need to play it again unless its completely different. Ive mined enough minerals for a lifetime.

Well good on them for fixing it.

Did you buy Splatoon, Forza, or GT Sport?  It's a model that people are supporting already.

That's not what he said, though.

And NMS got a 71 on PS4, which probably would have been a bit higher without the controversy.  ARMS got a 77, is that a better match?

1.53 is up for the PS4/XB1 folks.

Don’t forget the developer deliberately lying and misleading the gaming community in regards to what the game would include.

Those other three games aren’t really comparable here. Closest would be GT Sport i guess, since it’s seen substantial updates post release. But those were done to fix what the public found to be missing, not what was supposed to be there day one.

I wouldn't say genre leading, not when it's using hard coding for inventory spacing, as well as other aspects of the game and using Open GL.

The original premise gave some form of excitement when I first heard of it, but then it's eventual release managed to turn that into disappointment, which even with the current line of updates, I still feel with this game.

For years I've watched other indie games reach a complete form and then leaving ea, while also polishing up their products, and I've at times felt like they did a good job, but with NMS I felt like it was a lie from the start, but eventually after 2 years after it's initial release, it managed to come close to what it was trying to sell us 2 years prior.

Ultimately, like with all survival games out there, I eventually find out that whatever each game has to offer, is made pointless, because the most common theme and core aspect of all these open world generated survival games have is exploration and not much else. What I'm really looking for in terms of evolution for open world survival games is for them to contain more meaning to what they present, more content that has a reason to exist, other than just to sell you items and go "hello", while giving you the same kind of repetitive quest. The problem with wanting that, is that the world can no longer be self generating, because that can only get you so far, and it isn't anywhere close to being skin deep in terms of story and rich detail, which is why I look forward to games that take years to craft (looking at SC for one example) and show off their detailed worlds and stories they have to tell (which are rare and few in number for that genre anyway).

In the end I find NMS to being "alright", but still in need of performance patches, more content that makes better use of giving us more of a reason to explore, and less of a focus on simply becoming the librarian of the universe. That said, other indie devs need to learn to never pull a NMS again, and certainly never team up with one of the big 3 for such a release.

Actually, now that I think about it, Sea of Thieves would be the best comparison, as it has a low Meta-score and got hammered for a lack of content at launch.  Thanks for reminding me of that.

Hello Games and Sean Murry had a vision of a game they wanted to make.  They missed the mark by a long shot.  It took lots of player input and 2 years to fix.  No way in hell is this going to look acceptable by most devs, even with the pretty good success that this 'relaunch' is having.  I dare say that Hello Games will not make nearly as much profit from this as they would have if they had launched _this_ version of the game from the start.

This version of the game is damned fun, but still has some bugs that were there from the beginning.  Hopefully they will finally get fixed now that the game has been relaunched.